Morrison v. Thoelke
155 So. 2d 889 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An acceptance of a contract is effective upon dispatch when placed in the mail, not upon receipt by the offeror. A subsequent attempt by the offeree to repudiate the acceptance before it is received by the offeror is therefore ineffective.
Facts:
- A.H. and Mattie Thoelke, who were in Texas, owned real property in Orange County, Florida.
- On November 26, 1957, Charles and Yvonne Morrison executed a contract to purchase the property and mailed it to the Thoelkes.
- On November 27, 1957, the Thoelkes executed the contract in Texas, thereby accepting the Morrisons' offer.
- The Thoelkes then placed the fully executed contract in the mail, addressed to the Morrisons' attorney in Florida.
- After mailing the acceptance but before it was received, the Thoelkes telephoned the Morrisons' attorney to cancel and repudiate the contract.
- The Morrisons' attorney subsequently received the mailed contract, and the Morrisons had it recorded.
Procedural Posture:
- A.H. and Mattie Thoelke filed a lawsuit against Charles and Yvonne Morrison in a Florida trial court to quiet title to a parcel of real property.
- The Morrisons filed a counterclaim against the Thoelkes, seeking specific performance of the contract for the sale of the property.
- The trial court granted summary final decree for the Thoelkes, ruling that the contract was not binding because it had been cancelled prior to the Morrisons' receipt of the acceptance.
- The Morrisons, as appellants, appealed the trial court's summary decree to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a contract formed at the moment an acceptance is placed in the mail, making an attempted repudiation by the offeree before the acceptance is received ineffective?
Opinions:
Majority - Allen, Acting Chief Judge
Yes, a contract is formed at the moment an acceptance is placed in the mail. This 'deposited acceptance rule' makes any subsequent attempt at repudiation ineffective, even if communicated before the acceptance is received. The court formally adopted the traditional rule from Adams v. Lindsell, reasoning that in contracts negotiated by mail (inter absentes), there must be a definite point at which the contract is complete. While modern postal regulations may allow a sender to recall a letter, the power to recall mail does not negate the legal formation of the contract at the moment of dispatch. The court weighed the practical considerations and concluded that the offeror, having initiated the process and chosen the mail as the medium of communication, should bear the risk of delay or non-receipt. This rule promotes certainty and promptness in business dealings, as it allows the offeree to rely on the contract from the moment they manifest their assent by mailing the acceptance.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the 'deposited acceptance rule,' or 'mailbox rule,' as the law in Florida for contracts formed via mail. The ruling provides certainty by setting a clear point of contract formation at the moment of dispatch, rather than receipt. By rejecting the argument that modern postal regulations allowing for mail recall should invalidate the rule, the court affirmed that the rule is based on practical risk allocation and commercial expediency, not on an outdated notion of the sender's loss of control. This case solidifies a key tenet of contract law, ensuring that an offeree who accepts via an authorized medium can rely on the existence of a contract without waiting for the offeror to receive the acceptance.
Unlock the full brief for Morrison v. Thoelke